In San Diego County, at least one youth has been prosecuted on a child pornography charge because of sexting, said Sgt. Anthony O’Boyle of the Encinitas Sheriff’s station.

O’Boyle said he was working in Lemon Grove in 2011 when he arrested a Rancho San Diego teenage boy for having lewd pictures on his cellphone. The photos were of his girlfriend, and the teen was charged with possession of child pornography and eventually sentenced to probation.

While only the receiver was prosecuted in that case, O’Boyle said senders also risk facing charges.

Wells said he has talked with children who had things extorted from them after someone came in possession of one of their sexually explicit photos. He also has talked with youths who feel suicidal after their nude photos were passed around.

“You may say, ‘What’s the big deal?’” Wells told the audience at Cathedral Catholic High School. “When you’re taking a kid to a mental health facility because they tried to kill themselves, you tell me it’s not a big deal.”

In what may be the most high-profile example yet of the hazards of sexting, Ohio teenager Jessica Logan hanged herself in 2008 after complaining about constant bullying at school from peers who saw a series of nude photos she sent to her then-boyfriend’s cellphone. Jessica’s parents sued the school district for not doing enough to protect their daughter. They received $154,000 as part of a settlement.

Besides the emotional, educational and career damage that sexting can cause, the shared photos could end up in the hands of pedophiles, Wells said.

And in yet another threat, he said, a once-private image sent to a significant other could find its way to a “revenge porn” website after the relationship ends. Under a new California law, people who distribute sexual images of their exes can face six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

To prevent sexting, Wells urged parents to monitor their children’s cellphones with certain designated software – and to let the kids know they’re being monitored. That will help teens who are being pressured to take risqué photos of themselves explain that they can’t because their parents will find out, Wells explained.

He also said youths shouldn’t rely on software promising to make photos disappear from a cellphone seconds after those images have been opened, because some programs can override that safety feature.

And Wells recommended that parents put filters on their children’s phones and computers, but he doesn’t think it’s a good idea to deny them technology altogether.

“I actually think it’s a great thing to let them have all the technology they can,” he said. The alternative, Wells said, is to let them find out on their own when they’re adults – when they don’t have their parents to offer insights about the ethics of cyberspace conduct.

But Alpert – of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy – advises parents not to monitor their children’s phones because it sets up a level of distrust and confrontation that may do more harm than good.

Both he and Wells agree that parents should talk openly with their children about moral standards for online activity and the potential repercussions of improper cyberspace behavior.

For more resources, Alpert suggested that people visit TheNationalCampaign.org/sextech. Wells recommended the Internet Safety 101 section at enough.org or the San Diego Police Foundation’s SafetyNet program at SmartCyberChoices.org.